From the article, it sounds like the response is "it wasn't gain-of-function research, it was just research that involved gains of function."<p>It sounds like the fact the money was going to the lab isn't in question, but the exact nature of the research is still a little handwavy.
Here is the primary source:<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985/</a><p>The authors, universities, and funding sources are clearly indicated. IIRC there's even a description of who did what, though you can also work that out by looking at each of the authors' other papers; that'll show you what each specializes in.
Does Colorado state do a lot of this type of (supposedly debatable) gain of function research? It seems like they selected an expert randomly who said basically, “everything is subjective.” Good piece but it would help to explain why they consulted this particular expert for comment.
The answer is clearly yes, as money was granted to WIV, which specializes in corona viruses.<p>The questions are:<p>- why was EcoHealth Alliance/Daszak used as a cutout between the NIH and Chinese govt? The US govt. sends money directly to the Chinese govt. for many programs.<p>- why didn't Fauci admit he granted money to WIV in 2020 when he did hundreds of interviews?<p>- did Fauci pay for GoF research in Wuhan because there was concern about it inside the US? or paid for what exactly?<p>- why is Fauci combative when the Senate attempts oversight?
How's that even a question?<p>The new viruses created in the research gained human transmissibility.<p>Maybe it doesn't fit whatever loose definition of gain of function exists in the field, but, in layman's terms, it gained a function and it definitely sounds like risky research.